kgwgk

16 ms·

301.
by kgwgk 1y ago
Ok, so the modification was the "Here’s a good way to visualize what happened." explanation. I would say that the whole (short) paragraph is intended to clarify why the answer to the question is "Yes; you should switch."
302.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> If you accept the Bayes theorem That doesn’t make a lot of sense. A theorem is just a theorem. It’s proved, and in this case the proof is trivial. The question is whether you accept that the description of the problem in terms of condi
303.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> [that clarification] was given in the context of a modified problem I don’t understand what do you mean by that. The clarification was part of the original answer in the context of the original question. The clarification was stated ag
304.
by kgwgk 1y ago
Did any of those readers of her column, including PhD and mathematicians, that declared her solution wrong do so because they objected to the clarification? (Does it make sense to declare the answer wrong ignoring the answer?)
305.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> many formulations one finds (including the one in her column) As far as I’ve been able to find the text below would be the original question (“the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens”) and answer (“the host, who knows what’s
306.
by kgwgk 1y ago
This is not about someone choosing to lie, it’s about someone choosing what true thing to say. If “you're told that at least one of them is a girl” was intended to mean “you ask whether at least one of them is a girl and you’re told th
307.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> You're told that at least one of them is a girl. > Likelihood of at least one girl What the “mechanism” requires is “likelihood of being told that at least one of them is a girl”. Use Bayes rule to correctly solve probability r
308.
by kgwgk 1y ago
The argument of the exponential E/kT needs to be dimensionless. If E and T are not homogeneous you will still need a k to “cancel” the units.
309.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> Model training is going to be amortized over multiple years anyway. Claude 4 launch was not even fifteen months after the launch of Claude 3 (which is discontinued). The “multiple” is 1.2 - I wouldn’t call that “multiple years”.
310.
by kgwgk 1y ago
So if you meet someone and you are told that they have at least one girl the probability that they have a girl and a boy is 2/3, because the question has one straightforward and obvious interpretation. And if you meet someone and you a
311.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> What they don't understand is probability. Exactly. As the first reply to the first comment explains “The problem is that we don't know p(you're told at least one is a girl | they aren't both girls).” It’s funny tha
312.
by kgwgk 1y ago
>> gravity, which is often described as an anti-entropic force I don’t know about that but it’s also sometimes described as an entropic force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
313.
by kgwgk 1y ago
I've not read this particular book but I like Arieh Ben-Naim's approach: Four Laws That Do Not Drive The Universe, The: Elements Of Thermodynamics For The Curious And Intelligent https://www.worldscientific.com/wor
314.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> boring and irritating Ok, AIPedant. I understand that you may find irritating that someone points out that the original problem is ill-posed and “the answer” depends on how we decide to “rephrase” it. However, it doesn’t seem boring in
315.
by kgwgk 1y ago
I think we agree then. The original problem cannot be answered without making additional assumptions about how you get your information. Different interpretations may reach different answers by making different assumptions.
316.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> I think this interpretation is more intuitive because it doesn't make any assumptions about how you get your information. Do you mean “interpretation” or “alternative problem”. Because if it’s an “interpretation” of the original p
317.
by kgwgk 1y ago
If you want people to solve that math problem then state a problem equivalent to that one! Otherwise the context of “how/why you're being given that fact” is relevant, because the problem being discussed asks for P(X+Y=2| being to
318.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> 4) This extra information changes your probability estimate because the possibility of two boys has been ruled out; the naive 1/4 estimate is refined to 1/3. That’s not correct in general. It’s only correct if you assume that
319.
by kgwgk 1y ago
The "it's perfectly clear" crowd are also bringing their own assumptions into the answer. "Different readings of the setup imply different answers to p(what you're told | the unknowns)." See https://
320.
by kgwgk 1y ago
Maybe people would be more likely to give the correct answer if the problem had _one_ correct answer. :-)
321.
by kgwgk 1y ago
The “paradox” may become apparent if you think the answer to all the questions below is the same (2/3). And if it’s not the same, why not? —— You meet three people: Alice has two children. You're told that at least one of them is
322.
by kgwgk 1y ago
> It means "you can assume the family does not have two boys". But it does not mean that you can assume that p(you're told at least one is a girl | both are girls) = p(you're told at least one is a girl | they aren&#x
323.
by kgwgk 1y ago
Maybe he means that but the quote says “We're profitable on inference.” - not “We're profitable on inference including training of that model.”
324.
by kgwgk 1y ago
>> If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company. > ICYMI, Amodei said the same No. He says that even paying for training a model is profitable. It makes more revenue that it costs - all things consider
325.
by kgwgk 1y ago
I was not trying to make any point. I’m not even sure if the comment I replied to was suggesting that it was you or the other commenter who was missing some point or another.
326.
by kgwgk 1y ago
Your comment may apply to the original commenter “missing” the point of TFA and to the person replying “missing” the point of that comment. And to my comment “missing” the point of yours - which may have also “missed” the point.
327.
Nvidia Announces Financial Results for Second Quarter Fiscal 2026(nvidianews.nvidia.com)
3 points by kgwgk 1y ago|0 comments
328.
by kgwgk 1y ago
The domain has the answer: https://gmplib.org/
329.
by kgwgk 1y ago
A few examples: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_biological_na... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_compounds_wit...
330.
by kgwgk 1y ago
Several people killed themselves over this: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post... One member of

More ›